Poll: Reality check

[Thythe]

This is an interesting topic. I'd like to see it proved one way or the other.

[cardcounter0]

You don't have to be a professional mathematician to multiply EV by Amount Bet. But there is a thing called variance, usually expressed as standard deviation.

If you overbet your advantage, (or take bets that are larger than your advantage in relationship to your bankroll), you go broke.

Search the web for "Kelly Betting" and you should find an explanation of proper bankroll size and bet amounts based on variance.

There is more to bet sizing and bankroll than the question "Is it +EV or not".

And as pzhon refuses to admit, if you are overbetting your advantage, if you are underbankrolled you still stand a very good chance of going broke even making +EV bets.

[pzhon]

[ QUOTE ]

And as pzhon refuses to admit, if you are overbetting your advantage, if you are underbankrolled you still stand a very good chance of going broke even making +EV bets.

[/ QUOTE ]
It is a flat-out lie that I refuse to admit that being underbankrolled carries a high risk of ruin. I have stated it many times, in many different ways. This isn't something you could have overlooked. Saying otherwise shows a willful disregard for the truth.

In this thread, and in the previous, I have stated the following:

<ul type="square">"...there was a high risk of ruin for a casino with a small bankroll." "The casino wins 1/24 of the time instead of 1/76." That means I was acknowledging a 23/24 chance to bust out in that situation, out-chipped 75:1.

"You count it as a success if you lose on average, just because the house runs a risk of busting out?" [/list]
Here are some recent threads where I have discussed bankroll management, in addition to the active threads here in this forum:

<ul type="square">Long shots with odds

Advanced Risk Management

Variance in SNGs vs. cash games

Ever went broke?

When to fold AA, if ever?

EV implications when building your bankroll

Omaha bankroll requirement

Your chance is p - how much would you bet?

Bankroll adjustment for bonus whoring?

Typical statistics in limit vs. no limit.[/list]
Several of my comments on bankroll management were added to the Beginners' FAQ.

It appears you have no intellectual integrity. You can neither defend what you said nor refute my statements. Instead, you lie about what I have claimed, say I'm missing the obvious, and insult me. I will ignore you henceforth.

[Subfallen]

pzhon &gt; cardcounter0

[Cyrus]

What a waste of a post.

[ QUOTE ]
In this thread, someone asked,

[ QUOTE ]
I think I have found a system that could make anyone money, playing roulette. [Martingale betting progression.]
Why doesn't everyone do this?

[/ QUOTE ]
Someone responded, in part,

[ QUOTE ]
If your bankroll is bigger than the house's and they allow you to play with a sufficiently high limit at the table, you can beat the crap out of them, through a simple progression.

[/ QUOTE ]

[/ QUOTE ]

If you think that my (intentionally provocative) comment did not have anything to do with the question whether progressions are good or bad, please try to infer from my comment the following : What happens when your bankroll is NOT bigger than the house's and they WILL NOT allow you to play with a sufficiently high limit at the table?

Hint: Your only hopes of crushing the bank were those two conditions. So, without 'em, i.e. under conditions prevalent everywhere in casinos, you are busted, for sure, because progressions are no good in "reversing edge sign".

[ QUOTE ]
I'm a professional mathematician.

[/ QUOTE ] Thanks for the information. I'm truly sorry to see that you are also a professionally stubborn mule. To wit: You have tried to ridicule the endeavors in Blackjack of poster cardcounter0, by asking him about his bankroll strategy, etc.

What you have missed though (instead of seeing the connection that is necessary to make with finite BRs and finite lifetimes - we are NOT talking St. Petersburg here) is this very simple premise:

Cardcounter0 is playing with an edge over the house! (Just like the house plays with an edge in Roulette over the player that asked the original question.) Since cardcounter0 has an edge over the house, why is he playing with all that risk aversity and Kelly nonsense ?? Shouldn't his edge just carry him to positive-EV-land ?

That's what my comment was (pretty casually) trying to lead the discussion into. An area where a lot of things remain misunderstood, despite the efforts of many posters here (eg BZ) and elsewhere. I am bored by discussions about progressions (answer: they don't work - next question) which have nothing fresh or interesting to bring to the room.

Take care.

--Cyrus

[Toonces]

[ QUOTE ]
Why does the Bellagio have 10 million in it's cage?

Every bet you can make there has a house edge. Couldn't they just use the losers to pay off the winners? Why the need for a 10 million dollar reserve?

Except for a few select individuals, $10,000 is the most you can bet. Why? Why won't they allow a 10 million dollar bet.


[/ QUOTE ]
The reason is that:
1. Gaming regulators require it, and
2. Bellagio investors politely request that the Risk of Ruin for their casino is 0%, not 1% or 5%.

Let's say that I have $300 in my coin-flipping bankroll. If some fool with $15,000 wanted to take me on in a coin-flipping contest where I got a 1% commission on each flip, I'd probably take the bet (assuming I was convinced that everything was legit and I was guaranteed to collect if I won). It is true that my risk of ruin would be very high (over 90%). But if I have sufficiently over a 2% chance of increasing by bankroll by 50x it is still a good bet. (In reality, I'm risk-averse enough that I would want to negotiate a greater house advantage and be sure that even if I lost my coin-flipping bankroll, that it wouldn't be a major blow to my overall bankroll).

[cardcounter0]

a 90% chance of getting wiped out completely means don't play.

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
a 90% chance of getting wiped out completely means don't play.

[/ QUOTE ]

No it doesn't.

Note that Toonces didn't say that he was risking all his resources. He said that he was risking his "coin-flipping bankroll".

If there are no odds at which you are willing to accept a 90% chance of losing, then you are leaving a lot of money on the table.

[cardcounter0]

not throwing all my money away 90% of the time allows me to have money to make more money on much more lower variance props.

It's hard to pay the rent when you are completely broke with a "I had a 10% chance to make a lot of money" story.

[Skipbidder]

[ QUOTE ]
not throwing all my money away 90% of the time allows me to have money to make more money on much more lower variance props.

It's hard to pay the rent when you are completely broke with a "I had a 10% chance to make a lot of money" story.

[/ QUOTE ]

I understand.
The only way you can win an argument is to respond to an entirely different argument.